NATCA Going Down in Flames

Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
the "rule" book.......
Newps wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:


That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?


Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.



My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
"sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?


They all work under the same rule book.

What question did I ask that doesn't address the original point you raised?

I expect you will ignore that question.

Right you are! :-)

I know I can be replaced tomorrow by someone younger, stronger, and cheaper,
but I cannot be replaced by anyone smarter.

Viper: "That's pretty arrogant, considering the company you're in.
I *like* that in a pilot."

;-)

Privatization doesn't require any changes in how ATC is paid for.

Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.

What do you think of this as a possibility?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote:
Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
the "rule" book.......


Different rule book.

("Newps" wrote)
That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?

Of course not, that's an assinine assertion.

My initial thought is NO. What professional ATC person will
"sabotage" any element of the system to make another company look bad?

They all work under the same rule book.


So did AT&T ...at one time ...not so long ago. g


Montblack
Wait, I'm getting a call ...drat, "dropped," again, right in the middle of
our conversation. Oh well.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Right you are! :-)


That's okay, we both know the answer.



Now that is an interesting point. Most promoters of privatizing ATC
are also in favor of additional user fees. Although you are correct in
stating that ATC could be privatized without changing the funding
structure, I haven't seen much discussion of it being done that way.

What do you think of this as a possibility?


I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

You think there's no one waiting in the wings to bid against
Lockheed-Martin?

I'll bet there's at least half a dozen companies, all willing to bid on
the ATC contract, all promising to do it "cheaper-faster-better"...

That may be, but that's not competition. Competition will come to ATC
when
the user has his choice of providers. Of course, when that happens, ATC
will no longer be able to ensure separation.


That comment raises an interesting question. Let's imagine that ATC
services are bid by some logical boundary (center?). Would different
companies manning different sectors really mean a loss of separation?


No, but different companies manning the same sectors would.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Hmmmmmm. Thats the beef in this whole topic. They don't want to follow
the "rule" book.......


The "rule book" he's referring to is FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control.
The "rules" you're referring to are the new work rules imposed in lieu of a
contract.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:15:34 +0000, john smith wrote:

Wait a minute... you re-wrote his code and you are giving him credit for
it working?

It can be true. But it also shows that "working" is necessary but
insufficient for "good" (or even "decent"). Sadly, those looking in from
outside the industry cannot discern the difference. That is one reason
why so many have been burned by bad programming of one sort of another.

For example, something can work but be so fragile that it cannot withstand
any evolution of requirements (and therefore enhancement of the software).

This is why God invented Code Reviews.

- Andrew

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.

You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you
have ever written, here. ;-)

That it makes sense, means it will never happen, unfortunately.

Is such a split even being considered as a possibility?
--
Jim in NC

I think privatization is a bad idea. I think air traffic control is an
inherently government function and it should be performed by the federal
government. But I don't think runway traffic control is. I think control
towers should be operated by whatever entity owns the airport and the
federal government should limit itself to airspace and federally owned
airfields.

You know, it could be that you make more sense on this, than anything you
have ever written, here. ;-)

I agree -- that is an idea that makes a lot of sense. And it's
certainly one I've never seen proposed.

So, Steven, is this something that has been seriously discussed? Or is
this an entirely new idea that you just spawned?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"